Robert and all,
I think you have good questions and points.
Let me start by acknowledging that I'm the first to admit that tying
anything to the 49er was, in retrospect, a mistake. Had we known that 49er
parts
were going to become nearly impossible to get in the US, we would have avoided
them altogether. When I use the term "we", I'm referring to those who were
substantially involved in developing the rules. Additionally, when we were
forced to find alternatives, we quickly learned that it is difficult to make
parts as heavy as 49er parts without adding artificial weights.
I do believe that some limitation on the aspect ratio of rudders was of much
concern during the development of the rules (particularly very short cord
lengths). In addition, we had equal concern for the type of appendages that
the I-14's are now using. The question of end plates or bulges that do not
exceed the size of the rudder or centerboard section does need to be
addressed.
I have a rudder that has an experimental bulge that is smaller than the
maximum rudder section and have no feeling about it one way or the other. I
do
see the possibility in the future of the debate evolving (by the lunatic
fringe) into an issue of requiring a continuously decreasing section and the
need
to use calipers to ensure that there are no bulges, visible or not.
Weight is another issue. From the earliest days we were concerned that the
hull be one-design and that the weight of the hull with its fittings be
controlled--even to the point of swing testing to ensure that builders were
not
compromising strength and longevity in favor of taking the weight out of the
ends. Blades, masts, and booms were exempted from the weight formula because
we felt that such restrictions would date the boat--making it obsolete
quickly. In addition, the 505 class was used as the benchmark for most of our
rules
because it has remained strong after 50 years. It was and remains my belief
that centerboard r&d in the 505 class along with variations in mast
flexibility have allowed it to avoid the narrow competitive weight range that
strict
one designs are noted for. This class also uses the "maximum" approach to
sails and spars, allowing sailors to experiment with smaller sails (never been
too successful as far as I know, except in kites).
To impose 49er weight limitations on blades or spars at this point would
make all of our boats illegal except USA 001. Anyone who has righted both 001
and subsequent boats would be shocked at the difference in difficulty. Nearly
all of the blades made with Greg's cores (most of the blades now in
existence I think) weigh about half as much as the 49er blades and would
become
illegal with any meaningful weight limitations.
Mast height: I think we are all supposed to have a white band on the mast,
above which it is illegal to hoist any sail (going from memory of my 505
days). I realize that few or us (maybe none) had those bands at Fort Desoto
and
we need to fix this before the next regatta. I suspect that the only
exception would be a mast on which it is impossible to do so because it is
shorter
than that band height?
Sail size, I think experimenting with smaller sails is legal but maybe not
too good a use of time (I spent a lot of time doing this on the 49er). You
can only use one suit of sails in a regatta. You'd likely be faster with
smaller sails if we were racing in 25 knot breezes, however, if the wind drops
below 15 in that regatta, you'd likely be screwed. I would not be in favor of
limiting that option, however, because we might learn something. One of the
arguments regarding expense in the 49er experiments was the point that two
suits of sails will last twice as long and perhaps having a heavy air suit
would
save the normal from the damage done by extreme conditions.
I hope that I've been accurate in my take on how the rules were designed or
developed. This is certainly not intended to mean that they can't be
changed.
Best regards,
Bram
|